"No one would excuse a rapist on the grounds that he was drunk while committing the offence, so why should a woman be allowed retrospectively to withdraw her consent on the grounds that it was the alcopops talking and not her?"
1 posted on
07/11/2002 7:52:02 AM PDT by
Tomalak
To: Tomalak
I remeber some radical feminist professor(may have been in Texas) back in the mid 1990's who said something like, "Just as we have laws protecting innocents from drunk drivers, we need laws protecting drunk women from the driver of the penis". No joke. Rush went on and on for ever about it. I think he mentions it in one of his books.
2 posted on
07/11/2002 8:04:49 AM PDT by
FreeTally
To: Tomalak
Had laws like this been in effect when Willie went to Oxford, he might not have been expelled and might not, then, have gone to Moscow for his 63 days of Soviet indoctrination. Without that communist exposure, he might not have been so attractive to the leaders of the democrat party and might not have been nominated.
4 posted on
07/11/2002 8:17:14 AM PDT by
Tacis
To: Tomalak
How in the world can you rationally argue for that? If both male and female are drunk, who is to say the female is the one who should not be charged? Usually the female wears skimpy clothes, likes to 'freak dance', and generally spurs on the male, so if anything I say lets charge the women with date rape! (sarcasm of course)
5 posted on
07/11/2002 12:09:55 PM PDT by
rb22982
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson